Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Educators’ construction of mainstreaming policy for English learners: a decision-making theory perspective

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Language Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Increasingly across the U.S. and other industrialized democracies, teachers take dual classroom roles as both content and English language educators. Nevertheless, research on how educators actually understand and implement mainstreaming language education policies at the school and district level are sparse. This paper contributes a unique process-oriented longitudinal perspective on how educators at the local level in one small rural U.S. school district greeted a new mainstreaming English language education policy. The article applies an institutional “decision-making theory” framework that focuses on teachers as de facto local policymakers. It considers how educators vied with one another to (re)construct a usable history of and rationale for district language education policy that influenced educators’ collective sense of its fairness and appropriateness. The study also documents how teachers’ sense-making and moral judgments regarding their own and colleagues’ professional roles and identities were wielded in policy interpretation and implementation. Finally, the paper examines how the mainstreaming policy continually evolved as administrators at various levels of the school district hierarchy negotiated conflicting goals, and as teachers in each school improvised differing professional relationships and roles. In all, the paper finds that the meaning and form of mainstreaming language education policies are constantly reinstantiated by educators at the local level, and thus that local implementation of language education policies, and what “mainstreaming” means in English learner education, merit more careful scrutiny.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the term “English learner” throughout this article to refer to multilingual students who are in the process of developing proficiency in academic English, since this is both an official federal and state classification under the Every Student Succeeds Act (see U.S. Dept. of Ed. 2016: 3) as well as common parlance in the setting in which this study takes place. However, we also acknowledge that this term does not adequately recognize multilingual learners’ full linguistic repertoires.

  2. Pseudonyms are used throughout this paper. Given the small size of the district and associated greater risks of educator identifiability, special care has been taken withhold some specifics regarding the district and individual educators to protect confidentiality.

References

  • Arkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. Inernational Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,9(4), 415–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Putting street-level organizations first: New directions for social policy and management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,21(Supplement 2), 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodkin, E. Z. (2012). Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: Past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, November/December, 940–949.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Education. (2017). English Learner Roadmap. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/rm/. Accessed April 25, 2018.

  • Callahan, R. M., & Muller, C. L. (2013). Coming of political age: American schools and the civic development of immigrant youth. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, D., & Knowles, J. E. (2016). The effect of English language learner reclassification on student ACT scores, high school graduation, and postsecondary enrollment: Regression discontinuity evidence from Wisconsin. Journal of Policy Analysis and Measurement,35(3), 559–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).

  • Census Bureau, U. S. (2012). The foreign-born population in the United States: 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, S. F. (2015). The special educator’s guide to collaboration: Improving relationships with co-teachers, teams, and families (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creese, A. (2005). Teacher collaboration and talk in multilingual classrooms. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center; California State University.

  • Dabach, D. B. (2014). ‘I am not a shelter!’: Stigma and social boundaries in teachers’ accounts of students’ experience in separate ‘sheltered’ English learner classrooms. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,19, 98–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabach, D. B. (2015). Teacher placement into immigrant English learner classrooms: Limiting access in comprehensive high schools. American Educational Research Journal,52(2), 243–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215574725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabach, D. B., & Callahan, R. M. (2011). Rights versus reality: The gap between civil rights and English learners’ high school educational opportunities. Teachers College Record, ID Number: 16558. www.tcrecord.org. Accessed May 25, 2017.

  • Downey, M. (2016, January 15). Does Georgia now have a teacher evaluation system only a sadist could love? (2016, January 16). Atlanta Journal-Constitution. www.myajc.com/blog/get-schooled/does-georgia-now-have-teacher-evaluation-system-only-sadist-could-love/scp66NqV3Kx2N8snGqlazH/. Accessed May 25, 2017.

  • Educational Testing Service. (2018). Georgia Assessments for the Certification of Educators. English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Assessment. https://gace.ets.org/s/pdf/gace_taag_english_to_speakers_of_other_languages_esol.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2018.

  • English, B., & Varghese, M. M. (2010). Enacting language policy through the facilitator model in a monolingual policy context in the United States. In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 107–122). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrada, P. (2014). English learner curricular streams in four middle schools: Triage in the trenches. Urban Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-0276-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., & Licari, M. J. (2012). The public administration theory primer (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2016). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (8th ed.). New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gándara, P., & Aldana, U. S. (2014). Who’s segregated now? Latinos, language, and the future of integrated schools. Educational Administration Quarterly,50(5), 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14549957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García, O., & Menken, K. (2010). Stirring the onion: Educators and the dynamics of language education policies (looking ahead). In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 249–261). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgia Department of Education. (2017). Free and reduced price meal eligibility. https://oraapp.doe.k12.ga.us/ows-bin/owa/fte_pack_frl001_public.entry_form. Accessed May 25, 2017.

  • GOSA. (2016). Report Card. https://gaawards.gosa.ga.gov/analytics/saw.dll?PortalPages. Accessed May 25, 2017.

  • Hamann, E. T., Wortham, S., & Murillo, E. G. (Eds.). (2015). Revisiting education in the New Latino Diaspora. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2009). English language teacher expertise: The elephant in the room. Language and Education,23(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780802152788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haworth, P. (2009). The quest for a mainstream EAL pedagogy. Teachers College Record,111(9), 2179–2208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, L. E., Betts, J. R., Chavez, B., Zau, A. C., & Bachofer, K. V. (2014). Pathways to fluency: Examining the link between language reclassification policies and student success. Sacramento, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly,41(3), 509–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. C. (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy,8, 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-009-9136-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. C., & Ricento, T. (2013). Conceptual and theoretical perspectives in language planning and policy: Situating the ethnography of language policy. Journal of the Sociology of Language,219, 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2013-0002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanno, Y. (2018). High-performing English learners’ limited access to four-year college. Teachers College Record,120(4), 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanno, Y., & Kangas, S. E. N. (2014). “I’m not going to be, like, for the AP”: English language learners’ limited access to advanced college-preparatory courses in high school. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214544716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochhar, R., Suro, R., & Tafoya, S. (2005). The new Latino South: The context and consequences of rapid population growth. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).

  • Leung, C. (2016). English as an additional language—A geneology of language-in-education policies and reflections on research trajectories. Language and Education,30(2), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1103260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liddicoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B. (Eds.). (2008). Language planning and policy: Language planning in local contexts. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. 30th anniversary (expanded ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). The logic of appropriateness. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 687–706). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, S. (2015). Language policy and political theory. In F. M. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 45–55). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, T. L. (2011). Entry into conversation: Introducing ethnography and language policy. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.), ethnography and language policy (pp. 1–28). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, T. L. (2015). Ethnography in language planning and policy research. In F. M. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 81–93). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menken, K., & García, O. (2010). Introduction. In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 1–10). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2010). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,13(4), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050903370143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, H.-D., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In H.-D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 1–14). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, M. K., & Vorsanger, S. (2003). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 245–255). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Davison, C. (Eds.). (2001). English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning, and identity. Reading, MA: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, S. C. K., & Wiley, T. G. (2015). Interpretive policy analysis for language policy. In F. M. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) (2016, November). English Learner Tool Kit for State and Local Education Agencies (SEAs and LEAs). ESSA Updates Included. Washington, DC: U. S. Dept. of Education.

  • NCES. (2017). Public High School Graduation Rates. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_coi.asp. Accessed May 25, 2017.

  • Powers, J. M. (2014). From segregation to school finance: The legal context for language rights in the United States. Review of Research in Education. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x13506550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, J. (2010). Looking again at add-on ESOL certification. TESOL Quarterly,44(2), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.222216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricento, T. (2006). An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly,30(3), 401–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rong, X. L., & Hilburn, J. (2017). Immigration and education in North Carolina: The challenges and responses in a new gateway state. Boston: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, D. J. (1999). Integrating language and content for effective sheltered instruction programs. In C. J. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, and ESL in the secondary school (pp. 105–137). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, C., & Johnson, D. C. (2015). ‘Good teaching for all students?’: Sheltered instruction programming in Washington state language policy. Language and Education,29(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.924965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, K. D. (2013). Is separate always equal? A philosophical examination of ideas of equality in key cases regarding racial and linguistic minorities in education. American Educational Research Journal,50(6), 1249–1278. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213502519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umansky, I. M. (2016). To be or not to be EL: Examination of the impact of classifying students as English learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,38(4), 714–737. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716664802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Consolidated state performance report: Parts I and II, school year 2015–2016 for Georgia. https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/sy15-16part1/ga.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Education. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (2016, September 23). Non-Regulatory Guidance: English Learners and Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

  • Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIDA Consortium. (2014). Annual Report 2014. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Language and Literacy Education, University of Georgia, 315 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Linda Harklau & Anna H. Yang

Authors
  1. Linda Harklau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna H. Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda Harklau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harklau, L., Yang, A.H. Educators’ construction of mainstreaming policy for English learners: a decision-making theory perspective. Lang Policy 19, 87–110 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-019-09511-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-019-09511-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation